The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-1459•NED N. CARY, JR., Morning Star Baptist Church v. STERLING PERRY, James City County Police
07-1459Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 15, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1459
NED N. CARY, JR., Morning Star Baptist Church,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STERLING PERRY, James City County Police;
MICHAEL MCGINTY, Commonwealth of Virginia;
SHAWN MILLER, Anheuser-Bush Incorporated;
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.,
District Judge. (4:05-cv-00047)
Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ned N. Cary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leo Paul Rogers, Jr., JAMES
CITY COUNTY ATTORNEY, Williamsburg, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen,
Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Leonard
C. Heath, Jr., JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
*The district court dismissed Sheriff Perry on statute of
limitations and res judicata grounds. We affirm his dismissal on
limitations grounds only. We note, moreover, that he was not
alleged to have played any role in Cary’s termination.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ned N. Cary, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this action challenging Cary’s termination from
employment and imposing monetary sanctions and a prefiling
injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Cary v. Perry, No. 4:05-cv-00047 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2,
2007). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.